Repository navigation
Initial Release #28
Description
Activity
We will be taking new v8 releases as fast as possible moving forward.Absolutely +1.
Is the plan to have the installer install an iojs binary and an alias to node?I think this should work, but it should check if node is already installed and not alias if it is.
I have a concern and a question.
First to me it seems that weekly is too often. I understand you're trying to balance the insanely slow pace of recent node development, but don't flip to the other extreme. How much effort is it to cut a release? I know for me a luvi release takes a couple hours, iojs is a bit more involved, but also has a lot more supporting scripts.
Second, I love the idea of pulling in V8 changes as fast as possible. What ever happened to the idea to create a new C API layer that shields addon authors from V8 API changes? I could offer some help here but I thought Trevor has some ideas here and was farther along. Would this need to get in before a 1.0.0 release or could it just be a 1.1.x thing or 2.0.x thing?
Will be 1.0-alpha1, with alpha releases continuing until 1.0.0.
I am curious what differentiates 1.0.0-alpha.1 from 1.0.0? Perhaps that is your
Are there any changes other than dep upgrades and fixes required for 1.0?
I am leery of a long series of alpha/beta/gamma releases before a true, semver-ful 1.0.0 is released. All in all I would prefer a 1.0.0 release as the initial release---unless the TC anticipates actually making breaking changes in the subsequent releases.
@creationix the idea with shielding C API was rejected. V8 should stay more stable in next versions, as they have finished their major API migration.
How much effort is it to cut a release?
The goal is zero and that everything is entirely automated. Without that I don't think weekly releases are practical at all.
Wasn't nan at least partially blessed in node-forward for shielding addon developers as well?
If people disagree with any of those assumptions then they certainly won't agree with anything the TC determined for the initial release.
Curious: what does this mean for changing core primitives, like streams, going forward? Are they effectively locked now?
Other questions / concerns:
- How many prior major versions will be supported by core?
- How much lead time will the community have before a new major version drops? Is it possible to move towards a canary release system where one week's release is last week's canary, so we give folks who are instrumenting Node (cough cough @wraithan) enough time to adapt?
I wonder what the plan is regarding the adoption of ES6 features. Specifically, modules and promises. iojs currently has competing technologies, and it could potentially transition. Would that trigger a major version increment, and therefore, be the 2.0.0 version?
@chrisdickinson well... the last few changes to streams required full backward compatibility (or at least what we thought was fully compatible) because of the mountain of existing dependencies. I would expect additional changes to run through the same gamut, although with semver we do have a way to signal that a compatibility break is happening, but there is still going to be a big cost benefit analysis on breaking something so depended upon.
that said, you could see a future where moving toward or being more compatible with the upcoming streams work @domenic is doing as being the kind of benefit that might push a breaking change over the edge.
I think an alias to
nodewould be useful but not by default. An uneducated user who doesn't know about the relationship between iojs and Node might not be expecting it.Regarding the locked primitives. I highly recommending splitting the code into core and sugar like I did for luvit. The
luvmodule is just libuv bindings for lua. We could have just libuv bindings for v8. Then theluviproject is luajit + luv + openssl + other C libraries, but zero API sugar. Very C-like APIs. This would be the mythicalno.jsproject. Thenluvitis the full node.js style APIs with node streams, event emitters, etc all implemented in pure lua on top of luvi. That's the equivalent to node.js/iojs level of abstraction.I know this is harder for node because of how optimization was done mixing the lines between bindings and sugar, but I still think it's the only viable future to preserve the current APIs that everyone uses and enable a clean way to explore other styles while still reusing the C core of node.
How many prior major versions will be supported by core?
This is going to end up depending on the level of adoption in each version and how many contributors we end up bring on board. It's not something we should commit to now except to say that "until we say we're deprecating support of a release all releases are supported."
How much lead time will the community have before a new major version drops? Is it possible to move towards a canary release system where one week's release is last week's canary, so we give folks who are instrumenting Node (cough cough @wraithan) enough time to adapt?
We want nightly builds, and this weekly swap is probably also a good idea.
78 remaining items
io.js takes a good direction, exciting!
I was in doubt with node.js but I started to learn ES6 just by confidence in IO.JS to be the next platform
will it be released today?
@siliconprime-tung: It has been released already! Get io.js v1.0.1 here: https://iojs.org/
This issue should be closed.
Congrats all! Closing this as fixed. ❤️
Glad to see it.
- added 2 commits that reference this issue
on Apr 27, 2021
In the TC meeting today we came up with a vision for the first release.
First, a few assumptions we've internalized that probably need to be stated for this to make sense.
If people disagree with any of those assumptions then they certainly won't agree with anything the TC determined for the initial release.
So, first release of io.js:
Some questions still left open:
buildconfident we can have enough automation in place to hit this date.iojsbinary and an alias tonode?